Bullhockey - Most of what you are espousing is conjecture and not actual numbers. The collections are up 0.3%. There is no way in heck you can say that the cuts paid for themselves. The math doesn't work.

Let me also point out that your "imaginary math" is EXACTLY how every business would evaluate any decision. By looking at what happened after, but comparing it to what they expected to happen without it and netting it out.

If collections are up, how did it not pay for itself? Collections are up and tax payers and corporations have an extra 1.5 trillion in their pockets. So that is a net increase of wealth in the country of at least 1.5 trillion due to the tax cut. That is pretty easy math. How was this a bad thing? Why wouldn't you do this when all other things are at least equal and you get an extra 1.5 trillion to pump into the economy? This is not even considering what it did to unemployment and economic growth. This is a no-brainer. It's so clear-cut that I cannot fathom how this simple math doesn't soak in to everyone who is living through it. It makes question my faith in the ability of people to recognize basic economic improvement.

We were led to believe by opponents of this cut that it would not pay for itself. Now that we are up 1.5T, what is your case against the cut? Baffling!

If collections are up, how did it not pay for itself? Collections are up and tax payers and corporations have an extra 1.5 trillion in their pockets. So that is a net increase of wealth in the country of at least 1.5 trillion due to the tax cut. That is pretty easy math. How was this a bad thing? Why wouldn't you do this when all other things are at least equal and you get an extra 1.5 trillion to pump into the economy? This is not even considering what it did to unemployment and economic growth. This is a no-brainer. It's so clear-cut that I cannot fathom how this simple math doesn't soak in to everyone who is living through it. It makes question my faith in the ability of people to recognize basic economic improvement.

We were led to believe by opponents of this cut that it would not pay for itself. Now that we are up 1.5T, what is your case against the cut? Baffling!

I think you are missing the point. I stated earlier, and will do so again here, that the corporate tax rate most definitely needed to be lowered from a sheer global competitive perspective. Frankly, Dems believed that too, they probably would have targeted 25% or so, but even they wanted to lower the 35% number.

The argument isn't about the economy booming (though the vast majority of the corporate tax cut is not being pumped into the economy, but that is a different topic).

It's about whether the tax cuts are paying for themselves. They are not. They are technically adding to the deficit - at least so far. That doesn't mean they won't, but they have not.

As I pointed out, any business worth anything knows how to weigh future decisions and analyze past decisions by looking at what they expect to happen if they make a change, don't make a change, or make a different change. They look at the net difference.

The CBO - before the tax cuts passed - projected 2018 tax revenues to be $3.53 trillion - $200 billion more than what has happened with the cuts. That is why they haven't paid for themselves - again - yet.

I think you are missing the point. I stated earlier, and will do so again here, that the corporate tax rate most definitely needed to be lowered from a sheer global competitive perspective. Frankly, Dems believed that too, they probably would have targeted 25% or so, but even they wanted to lower the 35% number.

The argument isn't about the economy booming (though the vast majority of the corporate tax cut is not being pumped into the economy, but that is a different topic).

It's about whether the tax cuts are paying for themselves. They are not. They are technically adding to the deficit - at least so far. That doesn't mean they won't, but they have not.

As I pointed out, any business worth anything knows how to weigh future decisions and analyze past decisions by looking at what they expect to happen if they make a change, don't make a change, or make a different change. They look at the net difference.

The CBO - before the tax cuts passed - projected 2018 tax revenues to be $3.53 trillion - $200 billion more than what has happened with the cuts. That is why they haven't paid for themselves - again - yet.

I don't understand what is so hard for some to understand that.

So you are saying that the CBO overestimated revenues by 5.6% in 2018

The CBO overestimates tax revenues by an average of 1.7% every year. That would be an 60 billion average overestimate as a baseline. From 2010 to 2017 they have been off by 5% or more (2010 and 2011) twice. Overestimating on part of the CBO is not that uncommon. Based on their historic lack of precision, you can't take a 200 billion dollar difference (5.6% error) in projection and reality and say that is outside of their margin of error.

It varies depending on whether or not it is a Republican administration or a Demoncrat.
Then, who is reporting the data? A biased media? We live in America where we are lied to by everyone most of the time. The old adage "Buyer Beware" certainly applies to any hypothesis
being sold by either American political party.

The CBO overestimates tax revenues by an average of 1.7% every year. That would be an 60 billion average overestimate as a baseline. From 2010 to 2017 they have been off by 5% or more (2010 and 2011) twice. Overestimating on part of the CBO is not that uncommon. Based on their historic lack of precision, you can't take a 200 billion dollar difference (5.6% error) in projection and reality and say that is outside of their margin of error.

So what were your conclusions based on CBO projections again?

So take their average and you still don't get there. Keep drinking the Kool Aid!

It varies depending on whether or not it is a Republican administration or a Demoncrat.
Then, who is reporting the data? A biased media? We live in America where we are lied to by everyone most of the time. The old adage "Buyer Beware" certainly applies to any hypothesis
being sold by either American political party.

So take their average and you still don't get there. Keep drinking the Kool Aid!

Well, there is variation around the average. And they have demonstrated as much variation in their forecast that we had in 2018 as recently as 2010 and 2011. So, what I am saying is that the CBO has demonstrated that they have been off by equal or greater amounts as 2018 in the very recent past. They are off by a few hundred billion often enough that you can't use those projections as the foundation of your fantasy "what would have happened" argument. The CBO has demonstrated that they are just not that precise.

Now, lets entertain the possibility that the CBO was right this time (through some amount of luck). If tax revenue dropped 200 billion, but 1500 billion was fed into the economy (as a result of tax cut), to both corporations and taxpayers, that still looks like a great trade-off to me. A lot of wealth was created by this action either way.

I tend not to trust claims of non-partisan government entities since the DOJ/FBI debacle. There was a time, only two years ago, where lots of blanket statements were made in defense of the integrity of the FBI/DOJ. I'll believe your claims about non-partisanship when they are proven to me.

would ever accuse the Republicans of "Running the Show"? If they were running the show they would not have had more than twenty resignations including the Speaker (Paul Ryan).
The Republicans cannot govern in the House because many support the Dem's hatred of Trump
and seek open borders. The R's in the House failed to build the wall from Mexico and failed to support many of the President's agenda items. By so doing they supported the Resistence Movement of Nancy Pelosi or her successor in the House.